Is Roberto Duran overrated?

Ray Robinson is overrated as well, I guess. He did have 19 losses, after all. That's 3 more than Duran. Therefore Duran>Robinson.

 

Thats sounds fair but whats your reasoning for having Hagler above Duran? I cant see it. Hagler's reign at middleweight is comparable to Duran's reign at lightweight. If Hagler had gone on to win titles in other weight divisions like Duran did, I would understand but he didnt. Im interested to hear how you come to that conclusion.

 

You are right, Duran preceded them, so the syndrome should be named after him.

 

I didn't know there was a syndrome.
What does it consist of again ?

 

In my view Duran is quite justifiably rated very high on all-time great lists.

 

Being undefeated because every single loss is neutralized by an excuse.

Some examples:

De Jesus: Duran was green
Leonard: Duran had no time to prepare, this is Leonard's fault because he wanted a rematch. Oh, and he had stomach cramps
Hagler: Duran was old, judges saw it wrong
Laing: Duran was unmotivated, couldn't be bothered to win
Benetiz: Duran didn't care nor trained for this fight
Hearns: Last two combined

etc etc

 

That's actually the only one that I think holds some weight.

 

Duran was still a bit green for the DeJesus fight. I don't see how that's arguable. Be that as it may, I don't think that was the primary reason. The fact that he was in with an excellent fighter putting in one of his best performances in a 10 round non-title bout that didn't see Duran at his fiery best, is the main reason. I wouldn't say that was the case if I didn't see it in the footage.

That's why I don't make the same excuse for the Benitez fight. Duran simply wasn't the same fighter at that weight and at that stage as he was earlier in his career, especially against a stylist like Benitez. Do I think the fight would've been different a few years earlier at Welter? Yes, but at 154, at that stage of his career and beyond, Duran is likely always losing that fight. He actually seemed in better shape physically for that one than most of his other fights around that time.

Somewhat similar with Hearns. Duran didn't have much of a strategy for that one it didn't appear, not to mention Hearns at the weight was stylistic kryptonite for the bloated, out of shape Duran. Again, if you refuse to acknowledge this from the footage I'd hardly say I'm the one with an irrational bias. Hearns may've always beaten Duran, regardless. Not entirely sure, but I don't think it's too damning for him in the long run, being a bloated Lightweight losing to one of the most dynamic 147-154 pounders of all time who holds every conceivable advantage. Especially seeing as how he was still able to bounce back from it in his advanced age.

The fire that fueled Duran throughout his first 13 years was only seen in spurts once he'd reach the apex of his career after the first Leonard fight. That's the primary reason we saw such a drop-off, that and the fact that he had indeed been fighting wars for 13 years, and was fighting multiple classes above his best weight. I don't see why that's so difficult to comprehend. His achievements past that point only add to his legacy, and really put into context his technical abilities when he was on occasion able to muster up that same fire that he once had. I'm not saying he'd have fared any better against the likes of Hagler or Benitez regardless, but Laing and Simms? Surely, even at that stage of his career. Should those losses be held against him? Yeah, to some degree, but I don't think they hold any merit as far as showing what limits Duran had as a fighter at his best.

Duran was a passion fighter, as I've said many times. His performance relied on his passion. Past a certain point in a fighter's career it's difficult to muster up that same burning fuel time and again, especially when said fighter has deteriorated physically to the point Duran had in his later years. All in all, he had one of the most successful and impressive careers of all time, and at his best was second to few (arguably none).

 

Yeah, I get ya. I didn't know Holyfield and Toney got special treatment though. Of course, Holyfield is given leeway because the vast majority of his losses were past-prime. Same is true of Ali.

 

I've never dimissed the stomach cramps excuse as a lie. It could well be true. Fighters are human beings after all.

 

Some of you guys won't be happy until it's been resolved that Duran had a 25 year prime that spanned every weightclass from lightweight to light heavy.

If you ask me it's the constant tedious Leonard and Duran discussion and joke threads over the same tired old topics that's overrated on this forum.almost impossible to get a decent discussion going now on either fighter without the biased agenda driven element coming in and blindly taking sides.Bunch of unskilled labourers.

 

Like that post a lot sweet pea. Excellent points.

 

Sweet Pea summed it up. Basically, the long and the short of the issue is tape. Duran just did not look as good in some of his fights as he did in others, whether it was motivation, weight, pre-prime-ness, past-prime-ness - whatever. No-one's trying to wipe away his losses, but facts are facts.

 

Excellent post, you summed it up

 

Or whether it was his ****ing opponent getting the better of him maybe? No because its Duran we're talking about, it was motivation, weight, pre-prime-ness, past-prime-ness, stomach cramp. Do you see my point??? How can you not see my ****ing point???